What features / items would you pay monthly fee for?

[Chuck]

You can still put up an aerial antenna and get radio and tv for free. Using someone else’s transmission system (the cable company) is wat causes you to need to pay.

Not where I live in SoCal. Mountains between my house and the transmission towers prevent over the air reception. Many millions of homes in the same boat.

Sponsored

 

[sborsch]

It's inevitable. Your cable box, set top streaming device, has all the features it needs built in. But you pay extra to see HBO or ESPN or Disney+. The same will be with cars. All the features are built in but you will pay extra to use them.

And wait until Microsoft starts charging monthly for Windows. They already charge monthly for Office and Windows will be next. Move to a Mac you say? Won't be long before you pay monthly for Mac OS.

The entire world is moving to a monthly subscription model. Will your refrigerator stop running without a subscription? Seem far out? Well, when I was a kid no one paid for video or music content, we had an antenna on the roof. Now, it's just routine to pay for video content.

Methinks it is a bit of a stretch to compare buying entertainment on a set top box (or in the past VHS tapes, DVDs or CDs) or having major upgrades to a computer operating system. In both cases the hardware is the platform upon which media and capability is delivered, but it's the content and software that provides the most instrinsic value.

The push-pull I have on subscription with cars is this: My Apple Carplay provides significantly better entertainment, navigation options, and complete access to numerous features that an automaker could ever hope to match with their typical mediocre infotainment and navigation systems they provide.

That said, it's *possible* that a highly enhanced BlueCruise might become so good one day (and possibly self-driving too!) that it would be worth a subscription. I can't see much else yet that would justify paying Ford monthly for capability that should be built-in.

It's clear that every automaker wants RMR (recurring monthly revenue) that is predictable. Especially since Wall Street loves RMR and predictable revenue streams. But do consumers want YAS (yet another subscription)?

I, for one, am growing extremely weary of paying multiple subscriptions for TV streaming apps that are, ironically, collectively more expensive than the cable TV costs that compelled me to "cut the cord" in the first place.

Add to that my weariness with the accelerating subscription models for smartphone apps that become out of control costs pretty quickly (unless you cannot live without that $4.99/month app that "hilariously changes your voice" for your smartphone calls).

So automakers will have to add A LOT of value to get me to subscribe. But if they move to bullshit subscription "asks" like BMW's "subscribe for heated seats" subscription attempt, I'll go buy a used 1970s pickup and electrify the damn thing.

 

[The Black Horse]

Everybody saying that they would never pay extra for this crap are the same people that paid stupid ADM's !!!

( FYI I didn't pay an ADM. Never will. And I would laugh in the salesman's face if they told me I had to pay a monthly fee for something that is hardware based. On-going software like real-time GPS maps, or in-car WIFI I understand ... but I still don't pay for them personally. )

 

[lemmyslender]

Like most I can understand charging a subscription for things that cost the manufacturer to upkeep (nav, bluecruise, etc). I may or may not pay for those depending on the alternatives available.

I will never pay a subsription for things like heated seats (I might opt to pay a one time fee to activate them).

What I don't understand is the 20 (as of this post) people who said they would be willing to pay a subscription for Level 2 charging???? Would they also be willing to pay a fee to access the gas cap on an ICE car so they can add fuel? Without charging being available the car is pretty useless (I suppose Level 1 ie 110v is still a free option, but wouldn't be viable in most use cases).

 

[Chuck]

Like most I can understand charging a subscription for things that cost the manufacturer to upkeep (nav, bluecruise, etc). I may or may not pay for those depending on the alternatives available.

I will never pay a subsription for things like heated seats (I might opt to pay a one time fee to activate them).

What I don't understand is the 20 (as of this post) people who said they would be willing to pay a subscription for Level 2 charging???? Would they also be willing to pay a fee to access the gas cap on an ICE car so they can add fuel? Without charging being available the car is pretty useless (I suppose Level 1 ie 110v is still a free option, but wouldn't be viable in most use cases).

Re: Level 2 charging fee. It's not as essential as you suggest? People who live in an apartment building may not have a way to charge where they live. So, why should they pay for Level two charging capability.

 

[Chuck]

CONSIDER THIS...

OP here. Would you consider paying for things that you NEVER, EVER use? NO? Think again, you're already doing it. Look at the following:

• I don't own or will never own an Apple product yet I paid to have Carplay available.
• People who live in an apartment building paid to have the ability to Level 2 charge even when it's not available.
• People that never use the PAAK have paid to have PAAK available
• People that never use cruise control (my wife is one) have paid to have cruise control available.
• I never use the cargo cover but I paid for it.
• I've never used the Ford charger but I paid for it.
• I almost never get over-the-air updates but I paid for the wireless modem
• The ambient lighting is a waste of my hard earned dollars.
• Garage door opener buttons in the visor are a waste of my money

There are a lot of things we willing pay for that we never use. But somehow the thought of paying for something that we WILL use seems to rub people the wrong way.

Car manufacturers have created "trim package bundles" for years ala the cable companies yet people don't complain. Wouldn't you rather pay for only those things you use?

 

[MarkP213]

CONSIDER THIS...

OP here. Would you consider paying for things that you NEVER, EVER use? NO? Think again, you're already doing it. Look at the following:

• I don't own or will never own an Apple product yet I paid to have Carplay available.
• People who live in an apartment building paid to have the ability to Level 2 charge even when it's not available.
• People that never use the PAAK have paid to have PAAK available
• People that never use cruise control (my wife is one) have paid to have cruise control available.
• I never use the cargo cover but I paid for it.
• I've never used the Ford charger but I paid for it.
• I almost never get over-the-air updates but I paid for the wireless modem
• The ambient lighting is a waste of my hard earned dollars.
• Garage door opener buttons in the visor are a waste of my money

There are a lot of things we willing pay for that we never use. But somehow the thought of paying for something that we WILL use seems to rub people the wrong way.

Car manufacturers have created "trim package bundles" for years ala the cable companies yet people don't complain. Wouldn't you rather pay for only those things you use?

I thought your thread was about paying for subscriptions. Nothing on this list here are subscription based. Doesn’t make sense. And who are the “you” and “we” that never use the items in your list? I use everything you listed every day.

I buy a car because of the things it comes with that I will use. I don’t buy a car then cry later because it’s too fully loaded!

 

[Chuck]

I thought your thread was about paying for subscriptions. Nothing on this list here are subscription based. Doesn’t make sense. And who are the “you” and “we” that never use the items in your list? I use everything you listed every day.

I buy a car because of the things it comes with that I will use. I don’t buy a car then cry later because it’s too fully loaded!

Good for you, you use everything that the car offers. You're in a niche. My point is that most of us pay for things we never use and think it's fine. I don't buy a car fully loaded because I want to. Ford sells packages and I must buy useless things to get useful things. This is the exact same model that the cable companies have used for decades. I'm glad I didn't have to pay for the larger battery. At least I was given that choice.

Do you use Android Auto? You paid for the use of it so I assume that you do.

 

[MarkP213]

Good for you, you use everything that the car offers. You're in a niche. My point is that most of us pay for things we never use and think it's fine. I don't buy a car fully loaded because I want to. Ford sells packages and I must buy useless things to get useful things. This is the exact same model that the cable companies have used for decades. I'm glad I didn't have to pay for the larger battery. At least I was given that choice.

Do you use Android Auto? You paid for the use of it so I assume that you do.

That's not the best example in the world, but no, I do not use Android Auto. And I'm not stressing that the capability of it exists in my car and I will never use it. I also don't use the center garage door button on my visor, but I'm not upset that I had to pay for it and that Ford doesn't have a package option for only two garage door buttons instead of three.

However, I do use the frunk divider on a regular basis! Works perfectly for bottle and jugs that I want to transport from the store without tipping.

 

[alexgorod]

JUST A REMINDER. IF YOU SAY "HELL NO" THEN YOU GET NONE OF THOSE ITEMS.

Wow, 80% here don't need any of the listed features

My understanding of the rules of this poll is initially the car doesn't have any of these features, and, I assume, is about 75% of the current price and total subscriptions over the years (let's say, 7) will be another 25%. And other cars on the market are the same way. With this, I am picking the last option, with commercials Or I will pay for all listed features.

I won't pay for automated parking (haven't tried it yet) and SiriusXM radio.

 

[tuminatr]

Someone else said it but I will repeat, I understand subscriptions for use of things that require services or resources provided by someone else (I'm thinking internet connectivity, for example). But I would never pay a subscription just to use a hardware feature that I purchased.

For example blue cruse requires maps be updated regularly this is something that I would pay for because it makes sense to me. I also think you could get away with a nominal fee for internet access on the car but you would need to add some services to make it worth it. For example $9.99 per month includes live web access to a sentry mode of you car, plus additional security,tracking and remote access or pay to add some features ie pet mode is a one time fee of $19.99

I do believe there is a thin line between making people feel like they got screwed and providing additional services.

Now if you want to charge a subscription for things like android auto, heated seats or something that was included with the car it may make me choose a automobile manufacturer that does not do this.

 

[JoeDimwit]

Everybody saying that they would never pay extra for this crap are the same people that paid stupid ADM's !!!

( FYI I didn't pay an ADM. Never will. And I would laugh in the salesman's face if they told me I had to pay a monthly fee for something that is hardware based. On-going software like real-time GPS maps, or in-car WIFI I understand ... but I still don't pay for them personally. )

Except that I actually paid below sticker for mine… try again.

 

[bp99]

CONSIDER THIS...

OP here. Would you consider paying for things that you NEVER, EVER use? NO? Think again, you're already doing it. Look at the following:

• I don't own or will never own an Apple product yet I paid to have Carplay available.
• People who live in an apartment building paid to have the ability to Level 2 charge even when it's not available.
• People that never use the PAAK have paid to have PAAK available
• People that never use cruise control (my wife is one) have paid to have cruise control available.
• I never use the cargo cover but I paid for it.
• I've never used the Ford charger but I paid for it.
• I almost never get over-the-air updates but I paid for the wireless modem
• The ambient lighting is a waste of my hard earned dollars.
• Garage door opener buttons in the visor are a waste of my money

There are a lot of things we willing pay for that we never use. But somehow the thought of paying for something that we WILL use seems to rub people the wrong way.

Car manufacturers have created "trim package bundles" for years ala the cable companies yet people don't complain. Wouldn't you rather pay for only those things you use?

But they're not planning on taking a loss on including such hardware in a disabled state. This is all about creating recurring revenue streams, not providing a base car to buyers for less. If they were just going to break even over a six year period on the "rental" fees with a discounted car, they would not be making any more money than they are now. They want more money, not a different sales model.

As for features you don't use, manufacturers offer different trim packages and dealers typically have a mix of options on lot cars. The buyer has a choice of whether or not the features they want are worth the added cost (and just consider the extra features as freebies in that cost decision). If every feature was ala carte on a manufactured item, the manufacturing complexity would raise costs and it would likely cost more (see the configuration options for luxury cars). It's different from cable where it's just flipping a bit to send you one or ten channels, although the content owners are subsidizing less watched channels with the popular ones (it's a deal for fans of the less popular channels, not so much for the typical subscriber (or those that never watch ESPN)). Much of the heat directed at cable companies really needs to be directed at the content companies although that line is becoming very blurry with the mergers over the past decade or so.

The cable tv model they're really trying to emulate is the set top box. Charging rent for an item which is required for your service and for which you end up paying the total cost of purchasing ten boxes by the time you get it replaced with a newer one. That's the model the car companies are salivating over. They want to sell you heated seats 10 times over the life of the car, not once at purchase.

 

[ctenidae]

Car manufacturers have created "trim package bundles" for years ala the cable companies yet people don't complain. Wouldn't you rather pay for only those things you use?

I consistently complain about stupid packages that include stuff I don't want but are the only way to get the things I do want. That's why I killed cable in our house (only to pay a similar-ish amount for YouTube TV so my wife can watch 4 shows without having to remember what app they're on. Them's the breaks)

I don't mind, in theory, subscription models for a lot of things, if the subscription can be halted if I'm not using it. Heated seats in the winter time? Sure, but not in the summer. Subscriptions are only good for consumers if they are covering the ongoing costs plus profits of the supplier. Paying for installed seat heaters and then having to pay a subscription to use them is flat wrong. That's what people are reacting to. Pay to have an FM radio in the car? Sure. Pay a monthly subscription on top of that simply to use it, with no additional service? No way. If it doesn't cost anything additional to provide the service/utility, you should not have an ongoing cost for utilization.

In a way, we already pay a "subscription" fee to use the car, in so much as we have a car payment and are paying the finance company for the ongoing use of their money. If you buy the car outright for cash you have no ongoing subscription, because you are not paying for the use of someone else's money.

Sponsored